365Gay Agenda Blog

> Who are you supporting in this race? And why?

Barack Obama. I think there are probably other candidates with whom I’m ideologically most in sync, but when I reflect back on the 7+ years of the Bush administration, the thing I’m most concerned about is another 4/8 years of the tin ear presidency. With Bush, it’s not just that we disagree–it’s that he won’t even bother listening to me (or those like me) because we disagree.

I’ve resolved that I’m not going to agree with any candidate on every issue, but I at least want the comfort of knowing that the next President will listen when we do disagree. Obama’s got a track record that shows a willingness to do just that.

> Is something a deal breaker for you?

Yes, the candidate’s a Republican.

I’m torn on Hillary and Obama. I want to believe in Barack, but I feel like the Republicans will take all that madrasah and cocaine crap and run with it. By election day, people will think he’s a drug-dealing Muslim who’s going to turn this country into an Islamic caliphate. With Hillary at least all the negatives are out in the open.

I have pretty much supported Hillary all along because I wanted a President that actually had a brain. I think she has ideas of change but I am worried that either she or Barack will run in to the total prejudice and backwards feelings that still exist among way too many Americans. I will vote for any Democrat since the thought of any Republican is just totally unacceptable.

Jay,
I support Barack Obama and believe he will go all the way. (Albeit, I am concerned about his safety because it almost seems to good to be true.) Here’s why I am optimistic about his ability to weather the barrage of critics:

Contrary to arguments that he has never been an executive, I think he will be fine with developing a governing team – the best and brightest young people I know are falling all over themselves to work on his campaign – I would imagine he will have a similarly impressive collection of more seasoned folks eager to work for him at higher levels. He also seems to have good judgment in selecting campaign staff and maintaining discipline so I would have to extrapolate that he could do the same once he had the big job.

The Republicans will hit him on 1) lack of executive experience 2) lack of foreign policy experience and 3) a propensity to create a big government/welfare state. All claims I believe he will be able to counter with relative ease. I think his some of policies already dispute #3 (see his health care plan that does not mandate coverage for adults). I think if he chooses a Biden type as VP he is fine on #2, esp if he prepares for debates and comes across competent on fp questions. #1 would seem to me to be his biggest challenge, but I think his carriage and demeanor read Executive and the management of his campaign has been quite smooth so he would be able to counter this charge sufficiently too.

Iowa was a big win for the country – anytime you get more people paying attention and thinking about their future and how they want their country to look and then getting them to actually take some action (vote) towards making it that way – is a HUGE step in the right direction for a democracy.

I do feel pretty bad for Hillary because I think she is a really deeply caring person and wants to do good – but I don’t think she is at heart a politician, and that’s what Americans seem to prefer in their Presidents. More importantly, I think her paternalistic view of government is out of step with this day and age.

I’ve been depressed ever since Biden had to drop out…honestly. Because I really think what we needed in the next president was foreign policy experience – I mean, just look at what’s going on in the world. He’s chair of the senate foreign relations committee. He had maintained contact with Musharraf throughout the state of emergency, and had TOLD him – more than once – that Bhutto and others needed more security. He was the only candidate with a real plan for Iraq. And I could go on.

In addition, he was incredibly charismatic and likeable and had fantastic teeth.

I just don’t understand what more you could ask for in a candidate.

I’d support any candidate that isn’t afraid to explain to the voters in Florida why they should vote NO on amending the state constitution.

I’d support any candidate that says a federal judge in Oregon is going too far by not honoring the limited domestic partnership law that was to be effective on January 1.

Any candidate that has enough courage to defend same sex families from the ongoing harm that is being inflicted upon them is worthy of my vote.

If they can’t stand up for me, I can’t – and won’t – stand up for them.

They don’t have to advocate marriage if that scares them somehow…but they do have to act in our defense much more than Kerry/Edwards did in 2004 while 11 states amended.

I strongly support Hillary Clinton for her experience, intelligence, commitment and long, distinguished record of public service. I had the opportunity to observe — and occasionally interview — Barack Obama during his two lackluster terms as a state senator in Illinois. He’s a brilliant, charismatic man with more retail political skills than anyone who’s emerged on the scene in a long time. But I couldn’t cite you any signficant accomplishments he’s made or even begin to tell you what he stands for. He’s latched on to a catchword — change — and he embodies that word in his person and his rhetoric. I’d like to know what it means, however. Change from what to what? What specifically is he going to do as president and how is he going to do it? He talks about forging bipartisan coalitions but he’s never done it. He rarely even showed up for significant votes when he served in the Illinois General Assembly. Furthermore, he accumulated some sleazy associations during his time in the sleazy politics of Illinois. Obama is very likable and that’s why he’s surging in the polls. The public also perceived George W. Bush as very likable. I’m not interested in another likable, inexperienced president who’s hiding behind empty catchphrases. Jay, I urge — URGE — you to read Gloria Steinem’s op-ed piece in this morning’s New York Times before you talk to Logo. I’ll e-mail it to you.

There are differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on gay rights when it comes to legal recognition of our relationships. Both oppose a constitutional amendment banning gays from marrying and both support repealing the provision of the “Defense of Marriage Act” that blocks federal recognition of marriage licenses issued to gay couples.

But only Obama (and John Edwards) supports full repeal of DOMA, including the provision that says each state can choose to ignore gay marriages from other states. Clinton won’t go that far and also has stopped short of criticizing her husband for signing DOMA and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law.

Even though the differences on gay rights aren’t huge, Clinton and Obama represent starkly different choices. She is the party’s establishment candidate and a well-known quantity. Her hard-nosed pragmatism is admired by some as a can-do approach, and criticized by others as overly cautious and calculating.

In probably the most important moment of last fall’s HRC-Logo presidential forum, Hillary seemed completely unmoved by Melissa Etheridge recalling in personal terms how gay Americans felt “thrown under the bus” in the 1990s when Bill Clinton failed to live up as president to the promises he made to gays as a candidate.

If anything, Hillary is even more cautious than her husband and if elected would face Republicans with knives at the ready on gay issues. Despite many opportunities, she has not given gay voters any reason to believe she would show more leadership on gay rights than her husband did. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, shame on us.

Like Clinton, Obama offers a historic candidacy with the potential to transform American politics. Unlike Clinton – rightly or wrongly – Obama does not polarize the public. Hillary would begin a general election with 46 percent unfavorable ratings – a very small margin to win, not to mention to govern.

Except on marriage, Obama has hit all the right notes on the gay rights issues of the day, and he has refused to pander. He has chastised conservative black pastors and white evangelicals alike for opposing gay rights and aggressive HIV prevention. Obama is the only candidate who talks regularly about gay rights, including civil unions, in front of national audiences, and he is the candidate best suited to reach out to independents and Republicans in the general election and in fulfilling the promises he has made as a candidate.